Qualification/Disqualification

Jalosjos v. Comelec (2012)

FACTS:
Jalosjos and Cardino were candidates for Mayor of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte in the May 2010 elections. Jalosjos
was running for his third term. Cardino filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to deny due course and to
cancel the certificate of candidacy of Jalosjos. Cardino asserted that Jalosjos made a false material representation in his certificate
of candidacy when he declared under oath that he was eligible for the Office of Mayor.
Cardino claimed that long before Jalosjos filed his certificate of candidacy, Jalosjos had already been convicted by final
judgment for robbery and sentenced to prisin mayor by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 (RTC) of Cebu City, in Criminal Case
No. CCC-XIV-140-CEBU. Cardino asserted that Jalosjos has not yet served his sentence. Jalosjos admitted his conviction but stated
that he had already been granted probation. Cardino countered that the RTC revoked Jalosjos probation in an Order dated 19
March 1987. Jalosjos refuted Cardino and stated that the RTC issued an Order dated 5 February 2004 declaring that Jalosjos had
duly complied with the order of probation. Jalosjos further stated that during the 2004 elections the COMELEC denied a petition
for disqualification filed against him on the same grounds.
Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City found Jalosjos and his co-accused guilty of. Jalosjos appealed this decision to the Court
of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed and after several years filed a Petition for Probation. It was granted but then, on motion
filed by his Probation Officer, Jalosjos probation was revoked and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Surprisingly, the Parole and
Probation Administrator Gregorio F. Bacolod issued a Certification attesting that respondent Jalosjos, Jr., had already fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation. The said Certification was the one used by respondent Jalosjos to secure the dismissal of
the disqualification case filed against him by Adasa. The Commission on the decision of the Sandiganbayan found Gregorio F.
Bacolod, former Administrator of the Parole and Probation Administration, guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for issuing
a falsified Certification on December 19, 2003 attesting to the fact that respondent Jalosjos had fully complied with the terms
and conditions of his probation.
The COMELEC First Division granted Cardinos petition and cancelled Jalosjos certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC First
Division concluded that "Jalosjos has indeed committed material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy when he
declared, under oath, that he is eligible for the office he seeks to be elected to when in fact he is not by reason of a final judgment
in a criminal case, the sentence of which he has not yet served. the COMELEC En Banc denied Jalosjos motion for reconsideration.
Jalosjos is disqualified to run for an elective position or to hold public office. His proclamation as the elected mayor in the
May 10, 2010 election does not deprive the Commission of its authority to resolve the present petition to its finality, and to oust
him from the office he now wrongfully holds.
Jalosjos filed his petition on August 21, 2010, docketed as G.R. No. 193237, while Cardino filed his petition on September
17, 2010, docketed G.R. No. 193536. On February 22, 2011, the Court issued a resolution dismissing the former resolution. ( G.R.
No. 193237). Cardino filed a Manifestation on March 17, 2011 praying that the Court take judicial notice of its resolution in
G.R.No. 193237. Jalosjos filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 22, 2011.
On March 29, 2011, this Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 193536 with G.R. No. 193237, Jalosjos then filed a
Manifestation on June 1, 2012 which stated that he resigned from the position of Mayor of the City of Dapitan effective April
30, 2012, which resignation was accepted by the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte, Atty. Roalando E. Yebes. Jalosjos
resignation was made in deference with the provision of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to his candidacy as Provincial
Governor of Zamboanga del Sur in May 2013.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jalosjos make a false statement of a material fact in his certificate of candidacy when he stated under oath that
he was eligible to run for mayor?
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that perpetual special disqualification against Jalosjos arising from his criminal conviction by final
judgment is a material fact involving eligibility which is a proper ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Jalosjos certificate of candidacy was void from the start since he was not eligible to run for any public office at the time he
filed his certificate of candidacy. Jalosjos was never a candidate at any time, and all votes for Jalosjos were stray votes. As a result
of Jalosjos certificate of candidacy being void ab initio, Cardino, as the only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest
number of votes for the position of Mayor. A false statement in a certificate of candidacy that a candidate is eligible to run for
public office is a false material representation which is a ground for a petition under Section 78 of the same Code. Conviction for
robbery by final judgment with the penalty of prisin mayor, to which perpetual special disqualification attaches by operation of
law, is not a ground for a petition under Section 68 because robbery is not one of the offenses enumerated in Section 68. Insofar
as crimes are concerned, Section 68 refers only to election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code and not to crimes under
the Revised Penal Code.
This Court has already ruled that offenses punished in laws other than in the Omnibus Election Code cannot be a ground
for a petition under Section 68. In Codilla, Sr. v. de Venecia, the Court declared:The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify
candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. All other election offenses are beyond the
ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction.They are criminal and not administrative in nature.
What is indisputably clear is that the false material representation of Jalosjos is a ground for a petition under Section 78.
However, since the false material representation arises from a crime penalized by prisin mayor, a petition under Section 12 of
the Omnibus Election Code or Section 40 of the Local Government Code can also be properly filed. The petitioner has a choice
whether to anchor his petition on Section 12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or on Section 40 of the Local
Government Code. The law expressly provides multiple remedies and the choice of which remedy to adopt belongs to the
petitioner.
The COMELEC properly cancelled Jalosjos certificate of candidacy. A void certificate of candidacy on the ground of
ineligibility that existed at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy can never give rise to a valid candidacy, and much
less to valid votes.21 Jalosjos certificate of candidacy was cancelled because he was ineligible from the start to run for Mayor. .
The law itself bars the convict from running for public office, and the disqualification is part of the final judgment of conviction.
The final judgment of the court is addressed not only to the Executive branch, but also to other government agencies tasked to
implement the final judgment under the law.
Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 193237 is DENIED, and the Petition in G.R. No. 193536 is GRANTED.

Jalosjos v. Complex 2013

Facts
On November 16, 2001, petitioner Jalosjos was convicted by final judgment of two (2) counts of statutory rape and six (6) counts
of acts of lasciviousness in People of the Philippines v. Jalosjos in G.R. Nos. 132875-76. He was sentenced to suffer the principal
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal for each count, respectively, which carried the accessory penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code. On April 30, 2007, his sentence was commuted
by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to 16 years, 3 months and 3 days. After serving the same, he was issued a Certificate of
Discharge from Prison on March 18, 2009.
On April 12, 2012, petitioner applied to register as a voter in Zamboanga City. Because of his previous conviction, his application
was denied, prompting him to file a petition for inclusion in the permanent list of voters. Pending the resolution of his petition,
he filed a CoC on October 5, 2012, seeking to run as Mayor of Zamboanga City in the May 13, 2013 elections. In his CoC, petitioner
stated that he is a registered voter of Barangay Tetuan, Zamboanga City.

On October 18, 2012, the MTCC denied his Petition for Inclusion on account of his perpetual absolute disqualification which in
effect deprived him of the right to vote in any election. Such denial was affirmed by the RTC of Zamboanga City, Branch 14 in its
October 31, 2012 Order, which is final and executory under the Omnibus Election Code.
Five (5) petitions were lodged before the COMELECs first and second divisions seeking the denial and/or cancellation of
petitioners CoC due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration
requirement. The COMELEC En Banc relied on the Courts pronouncement in the consolidated cases of Dominador Jalosjos Jr. v.
COMELEC and Agapito Cardino v. COMELEC and in its Resolution No. 9613 motu propio denied due course and/or cancelled
petitioners CoC.
Petitioner then filed this petition against COMELEC Resolution No. 9613.

Issue
Whether Petitioner Romeo Jalosjos is qualified to run as Mayor of Zamboanga City;

Held:
Petition is DISMISSED.

Although the controversy has already been mooted by the exclusion of petitioner in the May 2013 elections, the Court, in view
of the doctrinal value of the issues raised, takes this opportunity to elucidate on the same.
On the question of petitioners right to run for elective office, he submits that Article 301 of the RPC was partially amended by
the LGC, section 40(a)2 and thus his perpetual absolute disqualification had already been removed. The Court found this
submission untenable and ruled that the provisions of law can be reconciledwhile section 40(a) allows a prior convict to run for
local elective office after the lapse of two years from the time he served his sentence, this should not be deemed to cover cases
wherein the law imposes a penalty, either as principal or accessory, which has the effect of disqualifying the convict to run for
elective office.
Article 30 provides that the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification has the effect of depriving the convict of the privilege
to run for elective office. This is based on the presumption that one who is rendered infamous by conviction of a felony or other
base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to hold public office, as the same partakes of the nature of a privilege which
the State grants only to such classes of persons which are most likely to exercise it for the common good.
Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered a law of general application and therefore must yield to the more definitive RPC
provisions in line with the principle that general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject.
Article 41 of the RPC also expressly states that the accessory penalty of disqualification remains even though one is pardoned as
to the principal penalty unless the accessory penalty shall have been so expressly remitted in the pardon. In this case, the
accessory penalty had not been expressly remitted in the Order of Commutation or by any subsequent pardon and, as such,
petitioners disqualification to run for elective office is deemed to subsist.

Talaga v comelec

TALAGA V COMELEC

FACTS

In focus are the disqualification of a substitute who was proclaimed the winner of a mayoralty election and the ascertainment of who should assume the

office following the substitutes disqualification.

Ramon Talaga and Philip Castillo filed their certificates of candidacy (COC) for the position of Mayor of Lucena City for the 2010 elections.

Castillo filed with the COMELEC a petition to cancel the COC of Talaga on the ground that he has already served as mayor of Lucena for three

consecutive terms (2001, 2004, 2007) without interruption.

Talaga countered by saying that the Sandiganbayan had preventively suspended him from office during his second and third terms, which he claims to have

amounted to an interruption.

Thereafter, Talaga withdrew his candidacy. On May 4, 2010, Barbara Ruby filed her own COC to substitute Talaga. Talagas name remained printed on the

ballots and votes in his favor were counted for Barbara Ruby, who won against Castillo.

But it was only on May 13, 2010 when the Comelec gave due course to Rubys COC to include her in the official list of candidates. Ruby was proclaimed

newly elected mayor.

ISSUES

The core issue involves the validity of the substitution by Barbara Ruby as candidate for the position of Mayor of Lucena City in lieu of Ramon, her

husband.
Ancillary to the core issue is the determination of who among the contending parties should assume the contested elective position.

RULING

1. Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy, there can be no valid substitution of the candidate under Section 77 of the

Omnibus Election Code. It should be clear, too, that a candidate who does not file a valid CoC may not be validly substituted, because a person without a

valid CoC is not considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed a CoC is not at all a candidate.

All told, a disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if the disqualified candidate

did not have a valid and seasonably filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at all.

2. A permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor of Lucena City thus resulted, and such vacancy should be filled pursuant to the law on succession defined in

Section 44 of the LGC, to wit: 67

Section 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of

the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. x x x

Since the substitution is invalid, can the second placer be proclaimed winner?
A: No . A permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor of Lucena City thus resulted, and such vacancy should be filled pursuant to
the law on succession defined in Section 44 of the LGC. Consequently, the Elected Vice Mayor must succeed and assume the
position of Mayor due to a permanent vacancy in the office. (Talaga v. COMELEC, G.R. No.196804 and 197015, October 09,
2012)

Q:When can a second placer be proclaimed winner?

A : The only time that a second placer is allowed to take the place of a disqualified winning candidate is
when two requisites concur, namely: (a) the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified;
and ( b) the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of that candidates disqualification as to bring such awareness within
the realm of notoriety but the electorate still cast the plurality of the votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. Under this sole
exception, the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their
franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case the eligible candidate with the second highest number of votes may be
deemed elected. (Talaga v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 196804 and 197015 , October 09, 2012)